Posted
by
Zonkon Monday July 30, 2007 @03:37PM
from the defeats-the-point-a-bit dept.

The Opposable Thumbs blog is talking about a disconcerting new idea being floated by the Official Xbox Magazine. Most people only buy the mag for the demos; they're considering just offering up the exclusive demos on Xbox Live, along with the included trailers and such. The catch? They're going to charge you $2.50 for the privilege. From the article: "We're used to paying for Xbox Live at this point--the feature set is worth the money--but it was sold to us as something of an all-inclusive deal. You're a part of the Xbox network, so you get the demos and the videos and that's part of what you're paying for. Now there is even more of an incentive to offer for-pay demos to people with this new distribution model. In some ways the magazine is already obsolete, and they could conceivably soon be in the business of selling demos." Would you pay money for a downloadable demo?

That's my short answer. I'm already paying to be on the network, and if I want to buy the game I'm not going to get a $2.50 discount. Now I don't want to sound like a cheap wad (which maybe I am), but the demo of the game is for me as the consumer to determine if I want to buy a game. Putting an additional barrier between me and your demo certainly isn't going to endear me to buy your game. Not to mention I have purchased games after playing the demo, so I can easily see this stopping me from buying games that I may have bought after trying out the demo (for free).

if they'd actually put 2.50 worth of entertainment in a demo, I'd be all for it. But all too commonly these demos last about 10 minutes and don't let you get much of a feel for what you get with a 60 dollar purchase. if they made it more like the shareware games from 10 years ago it might work, they often contained a good 1/5th of the entire game content or so.

sound like a cheap wad (which maybe I am), but the demo of the game is for me as the consumer to determine if I want to buy a game

.

There's certainly a cheapwad in the room and I don't think it's you. A demo is advertising for a product. By charging your customers to sell them something else, they've earned the title cheapwad.

And at 2.50, plenty of people are making a profit off of the demo itself. This is essentially an attempt by publishers to cash in on AAA status titles before they've truly hit the shelves, and isn't the first time. The trouble with AAA games is that they take a damn long time to make, meaning they take a long time to go from spending money to making money. Metal Gear Solid 2 had a demo released around six months before the game actually shipped. In an attempt to shorten the time from spending to making money, they packaged the demo with an otherwise weak game, "Zone of Enders". Sold like gangbusters simply on the market demand for that demo. I shouldn't have to mention how upset people were at how different the demo was from the game released six months later. (gameplay-wise, it was fine, but the setting and characters radically changed, which upset many longstanding fans of the series).

I believe, if you want to sell demos, make shorter games and sell them instead. 50 dollars or 2.50, it's the principle that matters here -- everyone knows its not about finding new customers.

Totally agreed, yet it constantly amazes me how much big AAA develoeprs do NOT want me to see their product.They release the demos exclusive to paid-subscription websites which I am not a member ofThen they insist on me 'waiting in a queue' to download itThen they plaster pop up adverts over multiple pages in order for me to get to my download link.Then there is the slow 6k download connection for 'non subscribers', mixed in with streaming ads.Then they try and persuade me to buy it before I've tried it, pester me to 'pre-order' it, and have nag screens I cannot quit.

As a game developer myself, this all seems insane, and naturally I do things the more sensible way. Every one of my games has a free demo, thats always updated to be the very latest code (i patch my server copies of the demo the day I patch the main game). Each one is on a server hosted by me, with an uncapped connection, and a direct.exe link (Download manager friendly), with no adverts, queuing or other bullshit to get between you and my demo.My demo is my advert, I *WANT* everyone to get the demo as quickly and easily, and as hassle free as possible. I cannot understand the mentality of doing it any other way. Just another reason to stick with the PC and not get an XBox I guess:D

4 of the 5 gripes you listed apply only to PC demos. I don't have to sign an agreement with FilePlanet, FileShack, 3DFiles, WorthPlaying, et cetera to get my Xbox Live demo - just gotta subscribe to Live. I don't have to wait in a queue to download it unless I've already queued up several other Live downloads. There aren't any pop up ads on Live, though there are sponsorships and blade page ads off to the side. My speed

maybe, but I don't like the fact that the xbox only lets me play games that Microsoft approve of. I've seen microsoft can perfectly good games for 'not being enough like halo'. I like the open nature of the PC, where you can get new genres like the Sims, or MMO games, because there is no gatekeeper deciding what will be fun.

I think you bring up the best point example for the point I want to make.I can understand that some people would be upset to pay to download for a demo on a network they pay to be on, on the internet connection they pay for. BUT! This is all business. If a large enough part of the gaming population is willing to pay for a demo, then companies will try to make money out of it. Simple as that.

The ZoE example is pretty good. I'm convinced this game would've never sold nearly as well without the demo in it.

I agree. There is no need to charge for demos when they are first and foremost an advertising tool and second not usually the finished product. Do you pay for samples of food at the grocery store? In addition, I actually have a subscription to OXM and I rarely do anything with the disc (usually not much time to mess around with demos and not full games), therefore I wouldn't be paying for the demos anyway. As for the trailers, that should be even more free than the demos. I can easily find them online witho

Well now you can assess a high cost purchase for only the small friendly sum of $2.50, surely that's worth paying to protect yourself from the potentially larger loss!All this tells me (in my pessimistic mode) is that a large number of upcoming '360 games are so crap that they want to get some income up front because nobody would buy it. Now maybe if the demo lasted an hour or two it would be worthwhile, it would be like buying a part of a game, but if it was just a video/non-interactive content then I woul

If I really (and I mean, REALLY) want to take a crack at the game, why not just rent the full thing (as opposed to an incomplete, cherry-picked demo) for a few bucks more?

Because the local independent video game rental store doesn't carry the platform I prefer. Rental stores typically do not carry handheld games, nor do they carry PC games (the rental, lease, or lending of which requires the permission of the copyright owner, which permission is not available to smaller firms).

1. Demos are advertisements. Paying for advertisements is stupid.2. The biggest exclusive demo they have isn't exclusive if you have a Japanese account set up (Eternal Sonata- if you D/L the Trusty Bell demo it comes out Eternal Sonata when you play it)3. Exclusive demos existed as a way to get you to buy the magazine, before. Now you're just paying for the demo?

Or, I could pay twice that (tops) and rent the whole game when it comes out, which I may get my fill of during some weekend. Micro-payments might work ($0.25-$0.50, say), but $2.50 is completely ridiculous.

They way I would envision this working is that the demos normally included with the magazine will cost $2.50 or whatever for the month associated with that issue's release. When the month is up they would make them free to everyone. Thats the only way I can see them doing this without pissing everyone off.

Umm, isnt that the whole purpose of the Xbox Live Arcade? You know, to get you access to short, sweet games for just a few bucks?

Why dont you get your quick gaming fix from there? Because the demos are not designed for that, they are supposed to fix you on to the big, long game for the big bucks, so clearly not what you wanted...

I understand that due to rising budget costs in game development, the previous use for using demos as a try-before-you-buy demonstration of the game is now obsolete and outdated.

But if we could get a demo of the demo before buying, it would let us make a well informed judgement.

On a serious note, I have mixed feelings about this. Previously, those demo magazines were a bit more expensive than usual magazines. I understand this to be due to the cost of compiling the content on the discs, producing the discs, etc. That's fine.

But at this point, you're eliminating that step, but still charging? What are you charging for? Does the game company get a cut of that? Or is this a deal where the demo magazine is paying a game company for exclusive use of their demo, then charging for it on the hopes of netting a profit?

On the other hand, there have been a handful of games I've wanted to get a taste of badly enough that I went out and bought an $8-$9 magazine just for that demo. I might have leafed through the magazine, and played a couple of other demos as well, but pretty much, I was after a specific demo. Paying a couple of bucks for one, where I don't have to even leave the house doesn't sound so bad.

Don't underestimate the marketing machine that is the Halo franchise. I recall a Game Informer interview with Bungie about Halo 3 in the Feb 2007 issue. Bungie seems more than willing to charge for a demo based on the size of the rabid fanbase.

That's the way it should work, yes. The market dealing with it.
However, I have a feeling that if some games show a loss of sales this won't be blamed, at least not at first. I mean, it's so much more convenient to blame piracy than a moronic business move.

Don't be so obtuse in thinking you are smarter than the business people at EA, MS Games, etc.

First, MS and the publishers both know if you playing the demo resulted in a sale of the game. They will know the exact conversion rates (assuming you got the demo from XBL.)

Also, realize that game developers currently PAY OXM to put the games on their disks, not the other way around. It's doubful that XBL will be allowed to hinder distribution of the developers games - especially since MS makes more money off the

Pricing info has yet to be released, but it is expected that trailers made available on the internet will be cheaper and probably different than the Pay-per-View trailers made available for television.

It is likely that this has been pointed out already, but the for-pay demo is not new. Back before the Internet--back when the concept of the "demo" was still mostly a benefit of being a PC gamer--there not only existed shareware but actual for-pay demo disks. Shareware is obvious: vend a small portion (up to a quarter) of the actual game for a reduced price--maybe it was free on BBSes, but I think the "masses" (what masses there were) paid for these disks. Shareware was often much more than just the one or

Except for the fact that back then unless you game was a runaway success like Doom or Simcity 2000, marketing was more or less word of month. Shareware and demos were pretty much the ONLY means of advertising for some of these companies. Throw in the fact that producing and distributing those floppy disks/CDs was expensive and you can see why companies wanted to charge people for such demos.

Since the world seems so pent up on taking pre-orders for unreleased games, how about applying that "demo fee" towards some pre-order price?
This way, if we like the game we get first dibs AND that payment is already applied to the purchase price. If we don't like it, MS keeps the money and there's no hard feelings.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. If it was $2.50 to play the demo, that would equate to X amount of MSPoints. So, when the game is purchased, it looks at whether or not you purchased th

What exactly will I be receiving for my annual membership? I thought my annual subscription entitled me to1. 24/7 access to play online multiplayer games (unless there is an additional mmorpg fee)

AND

2. Instant access to new demo's, trailers, etc.

I have noticed that sometimes magazines will get an occassional demo before it hits the Live Marketplace, but it usually is only a week or two difference. What would happen if this new money-making model is rolled out? Will I ONLY be able to download certain demo

And the "experience"... Held on high as if it were the second coming by yet another person who hasn't even tried a PS3. Yeah, maybe matchmaking is slick, but it's not $50/year better. If I had to come up with a single adjective to describe how much better it was I'd pick "marginally".

It's marketed as $50.00 a year for demos, trailers, a communication tool, multiplayer gaming, etc. $50.00 for all of that is not a really big deal. However, if they start chipping away and micro-transactioning me to death ON TOP of the $50.00 a year - then we have a problem.

That's what we are talking about here, consoles. You can compare it with gaming on Mac or Windows if you want, but either offer a much more fragmented platform as far as online gaming and downloads are concerned and a smaller market (as evidenced by the console market outselling the Windows gaming market by so much). Windows Live! gaming service may yet change that (as Fire once looked like it was going to do) but that's still in development.

The only way I could see this working is if they only charged for the demos that are on the disc for a month....after the month is up, release them for free.

I know for certain games I would be willing to pay to have a playable demo (Bioshock, Fable 2, and Mass Effect come to mind) but in general, I likely would be able to wait it out until the demo was either free or the game was released.

OXM disks have always had a fee attached..the price of the magazine with or without the disk had a differnce in cover price of several dollars. They generally have had one timed exclusive demo and the rest was filled with the demos already on live, interviews, screenshots and other crap. As long as they stay with the same format...where is the problem? If they suddenly only offered demos if you purchased the OXM content (which would be suicide IMHO) that would be a different story, but so far every indic

Say it twice. People seem to be assuming that this means all demos will become $2.50 when the truth is that OXM is trying to stay in business by offering their exclusive demos over XBL for a fee. My take is this: OXM (along with virtually every other videogame magazine) deserves to be out of business. They give their readers less than they can get for free over the Interwebs and all that keeps them in business are publishers who let them have first crack at demos. Said game publishers would be much bet

Say it twice. People seem to be assuming that this means all demos will become $2.50 when the truth is that OXM is trying to stay in business by offering their exclusive demos over XBL for a fee.

Yes, but there are a couple factors working against the article (and OXM) here.

1) It's on Slashdot, so nobody RTFA.2) It's on Slashdot, so people see 'pay' and freak out.3) It's on Slashdot, which means the summary is sensationalized and completely wrong.4) It's on Slashdot, which means if its Microsoft its automagically bad, unless it hurts Sony, then its good.

OK. Wait. WTF? This absolutely makes me cringe. First of all, it's ridiculous that Microsoft even has the guts to make people pay for XBox Live. You pay for the console, you pay for the game, online play is fucking part of the game! A monthly/yearly fee is just nuts! Next, it's demos that people have to pay for. And this is only for the simple reason that Microsoft saw that gamers would bend over and take it for the online play--demos only logically follow.
Instead of charging $600 per console, they

[crotchety old voice]
I remember when vid'o games only cost a quarter! And you could play as long as you could stay alive. And these were in, what we called then, Arcades. Had to walk a mile to get there just for the honor of playing. None of this sittin' on your couch bullcrap! We'd walk it and we were happy to walk it! Up hill, both ways! Which weren't so bad if it hadn't been for those snow drifts. Bigger than your head boy! But we did it, and we liked it.

maybe you're not a Sony fanboy - although the 'crappier hardware' comment says otherwise since all but a couple of multi-platform games look better on xbox (currently) - but you sure sound like an MS-hater... I hear they frequent these here parts.

it's not nickle-and-diming when you have a choice - don't buy the downloads if they charge for them. problem avoided and sends a consumer-initiated message to them which will probably result with them lowering or hopefully pulling the prices away from demos. act

The "crappier hardware" comment is a statement of fact. It's well-known that the sheer hardware of the PS3 is better than that of the XBox360, regardless of its firmware/software.
And yes, it would send a consumer-initiated message if no one bought the demos, but people are going to buy the demos because they have no other way of getting them. Just like people have no other way of playing online without being charged for XBox Live. It may be optional in theory, but it's not by any means optional in pract

meh. Firstly, you should look up the definitions of opinion and fact. I don't think the adjective 'crappier' could be used outside of an opinion in any context:)

after you're done with that, there's a finer point you've missed. There is a big difference between theoretical and actual when talking about performance. For example, the theoretical transfer speed of USB2 is 480mbs while the theoretical transfer speed of Firewire is only 400mbs. However, in actual practical use, USB2 can't even get close to Fi

Your conclusion to my argument would make sense if phone companies sold you your telephone and charged you $500 for it, and I'd agree with you if the cable company charged you $1000 for a cable box and $5000 for the TV you have to watch it on.
Likewise, I'd agree with you if Microsoft simply gave out XBoxes (or charged $10 for them) and then charged a monthly fee. But that's not what they're doing.
And yes, the WOW pricing scheme is ridiculous, too.

Heh, bending over and taking it is unfortunately standard operation procedure, at least for most gamers I know.
Just you wait, eventually we'll have a system where you purchase 100 frags, and any kills thereafter won't be added to your score.
And we'll have a nice old arcade revisit, after dying the n:th time "Insert credit(s)" will be flashing on our screens.

Gamers are gradually getting nickle and dimed for everything. Games like WoW started with a monthly fee AND an upfront fee, AND you have to pay for the expansion. Then there's things like Shadowrun, which would basically be worthless without a Live subscription. Some games are shipping where you have to pay to unlock content that shouldn't be locked in the first place. And soon we'll be expected to pay for demos.I personally refuse to purchase any of these games, but as long as there are those willing to (o

Ok, I can download the demo for 2.50... OR I can go rent the full version for a week for $4-5. I'll go with option 2 where the game won't quit on me and give me a bunch of stupid splash screens after 5 minutes on why I should buy it!

There are still some online rental places that carry pretty much every kind of game. The only exception to this would probably be the Live Arcade, and if they start charging 2.50 for those demos I'm sure people will stop playing.

It's not A demo for $2.50. It's OXM's entire disc content for the month for $2.50. Demos, interviews, themes, pics, etc. So if you are just interested in the disc contents and not the magazine you can get it for $2.50 instead of whatever OXM sells for now ($6?).

I would probably pay $2.50 for some demos, especially if they were extended demos (more maps/bosses/options/whatever). The idea of making the subscribers pay for it, however, is ridiculous. I would say that the content should be free to subscribers (with a code to enter, perhaps) and let everyone else download the stuff for $2.50 and not have the bathroom fodder that comes with the demos. That way, if you want the magazine, you get it AND the demos; if you don't want the magazine, you can still get the demo

The fact is, there are thousands of people that already are paying for demos. Whether in the form of discs included with the gaming magazines, disc exchanges for beta games, or premium memberships to download sites, there are several avenues where demos are effectively 'purchased', rather then had for free.
But the article is implying that the content of the magazine would be available along with the demos. Essentially, everything digitized. To me, that seems like a good deal for only $2.50 a month if y

Like others I am amazed at how grudgingly some publishers offer demos (sometimes not at all).However, in some cases the demo is a very worthwhile, if small, game in itself. I am thinking in particular of Unreal Tournament 2004, which made a demo with several maps on several game types, including online play. This demo is still being played today, 3 years later, so in fact that was a very entertaining ame in itself (albeit a bit limited).

Epic might have gone too far with UT2004. But the fact remains that oft

Remember when you paid to go to a movie and you sat down and the movie started instead of having to watch 20 min of advertisements. Or you bought a video and when you played it the movie just started instead of having to fast-forward it 10 min to get past all the advertising.

It seems like this is starting to be a trend. Just look at some of the magazines out there. They are like 15% content and 85% advertising.

I'm curious as to why everyone thinks this means that ALL demos will cost money. Only the OXM demos will cost money; there will still be free demos released on market place. Relax, put away your torches and pitchforks, drink some tea...

Really i don't.I think it's just a "twisted" way of looking at what's REALLY happenning and put it in the worst negative view possible for the customers / gamers.

XBOX magazine is loosing in sales. All gaming magazines are.So they decide to put XBOX magazine on Live, which makes sense. Download your issue through Live. Now you'll have to pay a small fee to get the magazine, just as you do now for the "paper" version. All of that is understandable.

I suppose the real question here is whether publishers that currently offer free demos will, on seeing the nonfree ones, suffer an attack of shortsighted greed outweighing their business judgement. Should that happen, the number of free demos available through Xbox Live will rapidly dwindle to nothing.

I doubt it's the warranties, since this is almost certainly driven by the game developers rather than Microsoft...More likely, it's just recognition by the developers of certain highly anticipated titles that gamers are willing to pay for demos in the aforementioned magazines and considering this an unexploited revenue stream. The sad part is, they're probably right [penny-arcade.com].

Just because you vote with your dollars doesn't mean you should only vote with your dollars. Explaining exactly what you are unhappy with and why makes it more likely that it will be corrected in a way that you want rather than just made different but still crappy or all out taken away.

I think paying for advertising is bullshit and I want to convince others of the same. When I don't like something, I do more than not buy it. Depending on how much I don't like it, I may tell a few friends about it if they ask, I may post something online, I may call the BBB, or even write a letter to my representative.

I don't think you really find that amusing. I think it pisses you off. I think maybe you are even a little put out by the idea of anything being free, and relish the commoditization of everything that was once cooperative and social. It all smacks of hippie liberal activism, doesn't it? All these tiny, unimportant people, talking amongst themselves and screwing with the God given right of important people to make a profit, it's horrible, isn't it?

Yeah, you fed the troll a little bit. But I was more over-reacting than really trolling.

Making money is okay. Sure, I made a big leap of inference there. Something about the attitude pissed me off. It's not just you, I've seen it before and I guess I took it all out on you, sorry. It really feels like some people have a knee jerk reaction towards people complaining about commercial things, like the only legitimate way to express one's dissatisfaction with a commercial product is by not buying it. Complaining about it to others is too much like collectivism, and we can't have that! I don't know if that's what you really think or feel, but it's the impression I get whenever anyone makes those kind of anti-free-speech, shut-up-and-just-don't-buy-it arguments.

So, okay, maybe I over-reacted. I'd love to hear your explanation as to why people complaining about something they don't like is so bad. When people complain, they are providing free information to the producers of the goods being complained about, who would otherwise have no idea exactly why people aren't buying their product. Maybe we should charge for our complaints.